2. In the instant case, it is true that the Defendants jointly assaulted police officers dispatched after receiving the Defendants’ report on the crime of injury to Defendant A, and Defendant C is likely to impair the official duties of police officers due to the instant crime. It is true that the Defendants’ liability for the crime is not less narrowly given that the legitimate performance of official duties of police officers could be considerably obstructed due to the Defendants’ instant crime.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendants committed the instant crime in depth and did not repeat again; (b) the Defendants appears to have committed the instant crime in contingency and impulsely under the influence of somewhat drunk; and (c) Defendant A wishesing the Defendant’s wife by mutual agreement with the victim of the instant injury; and (d) other various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendants’ punishment against the Defendants is too uneasible, and thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.